These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

the dumbing down of names to bring in new blood?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Razin
The Scope
#61 - 2012-01-26 13:04:57 UTC
CCP Lemur wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:
there is complexity that revolves around decisions and trade-offs.

then there is complexity that revolves around memorizing random stuff.

One type adds to the game, the other doesn't.


This fine lady hits the point home. Yes, people love the old names and we all got accustomed to them since back in the days. But I like the new system way better since I don't have to go through dozens of clicks and comparisons to find the thing I want. So no meaningful complexity at all is lost only a naming scheme that was based on randomness alone.

Simplicity isn't the same as convenience.

The "lady" may be right, even if 'her' statement is a bit of a strawman, but your method of achieving convenience through extreme simplification leaves a lot to be desired. Instead of giving everything the same generic name you should have tried to make the current unique names more meaningful. You've had several posts in the test forum section describing exactly how something like that could be done. Yet you decided to ignore them.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#62 - 2012-01-26 13:05:17 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Ravcharas wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The less time you have to spend fighting the game, the more time you have left over to play it. Any simplification which increases the amount of time players can be interacting with each other, while keeping the interaction sufficiently interesting, is a good simplification.

Or, put another way, how good a player you are should be defined by how good your decisions are, not by how many tasks and lists you've memorized.

(We could add a window that doesn't let you undock until you can identify the NPC corp a random logo belongs to, and people could spend a lot of time learning all the logos, and become "really good" at "the undock quiz", but it would still be a terrible mechanic.)


"Quad LiF Fueled Booster Rockets" are now known as "Prototype 100MN MicroWarpdrive I
"Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters" are now known as "Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I"
"Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive" are now known as "Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I"

These are the meta mwd modules you usually go with. The prefix is different for all three sizes and are in no way aptly named. Limited sounds like something you'd rather not use, gotta be a downside with one of those.

How is this a simplification? You've traded one set of obfuscating names for another, confusing old players without helping new players one iota.


The propulsion mods are about the worst possible case, because there's very few of them and their meta levels are all over the place. Any coherent scheme to show meta levels is always going to make them look somewhat inconsistent, because the modules themselves are inconsistent.

Fix Lag wrote:
I have some bad news for you, Greyscale. Eve doesn't tolerate stupid people, and renaming modules isn't gonna help said morons. I don't know why I'm telling you this because you work on a game whose learning curve made it famous, but then again, you guys thought the NeX store was brilliant too. vOv some people, you just can't reach.


Usability isn't for stupid people, it's for everyone. Again, we want to be reducing the effort players need to make to understand the information we're presenting, so that they have more time to think about the decisions they're making based on that information. Making good decisions should be hard. Reading the UI, or understanding what the hell a given module does, should be easy. There's no good excuse for a multiplayer game being obtuse.

Imuran wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The less time you have to spend fighting the game, the more time you have left over to play it. Any simplification which increases the amount of time players can be interacting with each other, while keeping the interaction sufficiently interesting, is a good simplification.

Or, put another way, how good a player you are should be defined by how good your decisions are, not by how many tasks and lists you've memorized.


So the Science and Industry dialogs are high on your list for streamlining? or is it the view that industrialists dont need to interact with other players?


I don't know where they are on the priority list, because there are a lot of areas of the UI that are crying out for usability improvements, but they're certainly a poster-child for "fighting the UI". Again, the hard bit of S&I should be "what am I going to make and how much am I going to sell it for". Once you've made that decision, there's no really good reason why executing it should be difficult.
Orion Guardian
#63 - 2012-01-26 13:06:47 UTC
You know what the simplification is:

You do NOT have to memorize or show info the Modules anymore to remember what ship class it belongs to. Quad Lif being 100MN MWD is kind of stuck in my head. But I could not just say if Y-18 are 1,10 or 100MN or even if its AB or MWD without seeing the module picture
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2012-01-26 13:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The less time you have to spend fighting the game, the more time you have left over to play it. Any simplification which increases the amount of time players can be interacting with each other, while keeping the interaction sufficiently interesting, is a good simplification.


I may be ripping this out of context, but that block of text reflects a mindset
which is a pure one way track down to zero. Making things sound less interesting aka ...
... boring, common, usual, dull, etc ... will not help the cause.

You're removing feeling from the game. As stupid as it may sound for people who uber-believe in logic,
(and thus have no clue what i'm talking about anyway)
an awesomely named mod (like the Y-T and the Y-S) promotes feelings towards the ship,
which is what you want. It bonds and binds. The value of a mod doesn't do that at all,
but having stuff that sounds awesome does.

Any noob that can use modules that sound "cool" will go "wow that sounds cool!".
Which is a simplification of the processes that happen everywhere in the world,
all day long, just because things have names that appeal.

Now think about what you did.

You are removing emotions from the game.


Noobs!
Cierejai
Biofuel Productions
#65 - 2012-01-26 13:09:18 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
CCP Lemur wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:
there is complexity that revolves around decisions and trade-offs.

then there is complexity that revolves around memorizing random stuff.

One type adds to the game, the other doesn't.


This fine lady hits the point home. Yes, people love the old names and we all got accustomed to them since back in the days. But I like the new system way better since I don't have to go through dozens of clicks and comparisons to find the thing I want. So no meaningful complexity at all is lost only a naming scheme that was based on randomness alone.


Except now you can't find the missile type you want without sorting through another dozen missile types you don't want.

Mjolnir Rocket is insufficient because it doesn't show the t2 variants because the naming scheme doesn't match.

And still, Trauma is an awful name, and Nova is just... ya.

Nova means "new". It doesn't mean anything to do with thermic reactions. "Supernova" has to do with the birth of a star.

"Nova Torpedo" means "New Torpedo".


The names are stupid. Seriously, straight out. Change them again to something that isn't useless.

Also, there is no reason that "Guided Missiles" and "unguided missiles" should share the same names anyways. They're very different. This whole "I want EM missiles to share the same name" needs to have been handled a different way.



A nova is a star becoming very bright then returning to normal. Supernova has nothing to do with the birth of a star. A supernova is a star blowing up and becoming either a black hole or neutron star.

So putting the name nova on something that blows up isn't quite a stretch?

>Implying I ignored the latin origin of the word. Use modern definitions plox, especially considering this is a space game.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2012-01-26 13:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Tippia wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Making stuff sound less interesting sure in hell
will attract people... *rollseyes*
It certainly won't drive them away.


Why do you believe that to be true ?
And how does your response actually relate to my comment,
as i was talking about attracting new people and not about keeping them ?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#67 - 2012-01-26 13:11:00 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The less time you have to spend fighting the game, the more time you have left over to play it. Any simplification which increases the amount of time players can be interacting with each other, while keeping the interaction sufficiently interesting, is a good simplification.


I may be ripping this out of context, but that block of text reflects a mindset
which is a pure one way track down to zero. Making things sound less interesting aka ...
... boring, common, usual, dull, etc ... will not help the cause.

You're removing feeling from the game. As stupid as it may sound for people who uber-believe in logic,
(and thus have no clue what i'm talking about anyway)
an awesomely named mod (like the Y-T and the Y-S) promotes feelings towards the ship,
which is what you want. It bonds and binds. The value of a mod doesn't do that at all,
but having stuff that sounds awesome does.

Any noob that can use modules that sound "cool" will go "wow that sounds cool!".
Which is a simplification of the processes that happen everywhere in the world,
all day long, just because things have names that appeal.

Now think about what you did.

You are removing emotions from the game.


Noobs!


That's a fair point, and it's something that our writers are wrestling with. There was a lot of discussion about this change, trust me Smile
DeLaBu
CAF Industries
#68 - 2012-01-26 13:12:52 UTC
Yes, CCP please bring back the random complex names. In fact, use a random character generator to rename everything to make it even more complex. Oh, and make it so that our market order values must be prime numbers.

THAT should weed out those non-math-wiz WOW mouthbreathers.

Removing complexity that adds very little or nothing to gameplay is NOT dumbing down the game Roll
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2012-01-26 13:13:00 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
That's a fair point, and it's something that our writers are wrestling with. There was a lot of discussion about this change, trust me Smile


Well, i'll keep an eye on it. :)
Morar Santee
#70 - 2012-01-26 13:16:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Morar Santee
CCP Lemur wrote:
But I like the new system way better since I don't have to go through dozens of clicks and comparisons to find the thing I want. So no meaningful complexity at all is lost only a naming scheme that was based on randomness alone.


Man, honest to God, do you actually play this game?

The difference between the old and the new system are as follows.

Old system:
Search for 100mn - all base 100mn propulsion modules are listed (meta versions that do not include "100mn" are in "variations" tab)
Search for "Quad-Lif", "Y-T", "catalyzed", etc - results in finding the item you want

New system:
Search for 100mn - 2 more propulsion modules listed than previously (experimental AB / prototype MWD) - but still mixed between MWD/AB and certain meta levels (e.g. storylines) missing
Search for "prototype" - results in over FIFTY (50!!!!!!!!!!) EFFING RESULTS!!!! 45 of which are guns, Nosferatus, webs, warp scramblers, ECCM and a ton of other ****. Which is ranging through all meta levels 1-4.

Now tell me, seriously, just tell me one thing: What drug do you have to smoke for this to be an improvement?

Even if you started dumbing down the game until every single meta level item is actually called "limited", "prototype", "experimental" - it doesn't solve the problem! It makes it worse, okay? Because you get a ton of **** listed in search queries that you have absolutely no interest in. Okay?
Man, just tell me, please, tell me: What do I have to do to explain this in words you understand?
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
Commonwealth Vanguard
#71 - 2012-01-26 13:19:09 UTC
Eve is dying because of OP

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Soma Khan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-01-26 13:20:38 UTC
DeLaBu wrote:
Yes, CCP please bring back the random complex names. In fact, use a random character generator to rename everything to make it even more complex. Oh, and make it so that our market order values must be prime numbers.

THAT should weed out those non-math-wiz WOW mouthbreathers.

Removing complexity that adds very little or nothing to gameplay is NOT dumbing down the game Roll

why do the posts from the simplification proponents reek of inferiority complex?
I'thari
#73 - 2012-01-26 13:29:20 UTC  |  Edited by: I'thari
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Usability isn't for stupid people, it's for everyone. Again, we want to be reducing the effort players need to make to understand the information we're presenting, so that they have more time to think about the decisions they're making based on that information. Making good decisions should be hard. Reading the UI, or understanding what the hell a given module does, should be easy. There's no good excuse for a multiplayer game being obtuse.

I guess adding some meta level indicator on module icon did not occur to you... as well as improving item search: like adding ability to search just meta 3 items without need to memorise how you call meta 3 lasers or meta 3 launchers ← that is a usability improvement as I see it, not renaming stuff to confuse everyone more.

Disclaimer:

Every single character used in this post is a work of fiction. Any similarities with real-world alphabet, or - god forbid - language is purely unintnetional!
Teowulff Odinson
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2012-01-26 13:29:34 UTC
I don't really mind making things a bit clearer so new players don't have to learn 1,000s of random names by heart to know what they're actually meaning. Giving things completely random names doesn't give me a fuzzy feeling inside.

For instance, I wouldn't mind if they'd call the missiles "medium short-range kinetic missile", "small kinetic long-range missile", it's just handy and clear and straightforward. The same for most other modules. In my opinion, making such things overly complex and blurry doesn't add anything to the game.

Ship are the centre of the game though. No-one will confuse those.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2012-01-26 13:31:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Soma Khan wrote:
DeLaBu wrote:
Yes, CCP please bring back the random complex names. In fact, use a random character generator to rename everything to make it even more complex. Oh, and make it so that our market order values must be prime numbers.

THAT should weed out those non-math-wiz WOW mouthbreathers.

Removing complexity that adds very little or nothing to gameplay is NOT dumbing down the game Roll

why do the posts from the simplification proponents reek of inferiority complex?


The guy you quoted has no idea of how important cool names are.

Check out this car ... (it's a Chevrolet Corvette!)
... and now remove it's name and give it a more generic one.

It's not "simplification" as well as it's not "dumbing down".

Proper words to describe the process are "removing emotion" or "making generic".
Holy One
Privat Party
#76 - 2012-01-26 13:40:07 UTC
Very disappointed with the name changes and not sure what the benefit is. Other than to strip yet another layer of immersion from the spreadsheet.

:)
Disdaine
#77 - 2012-01-26 13:41:16 UTC
I'm over it.

Shouldn't expect too much from a group called Team Pink Zombie Kittens. That right there is an ominous sign.

Emotionally detached generic item renaming.

Removal of functionality and introduction of complexity with the new neocom.

They even forgot to add a militia button to the neocom in the big FW expansion.

The rocks still rolling downhill.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2012-01-26 13:47:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
I'thari wrote:
[quote=CCP Greyscale]Usability isn't for stupid people, it's for everyone. Again, we want to be reducing the effort players need to make to understand the information we're presenting, so that they have more time to think about the decisions they're making based on that information. Making good decisions should be hard. Reading the UI, or understanding what the hell a given module does, should be easy. There's no good excuse for a multiplayer game being obtuse.


"... multiplayer game being obtuse."

So i had to look up the meaning of "obtuse", as i'm not a native english speaker
and as i read what it means i thought ...

"but that's EXACTLY what you're doing!!"

obtuse ... abgestumpft, also translates to blunt.
Ayumi Hinoki
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-01-26 13:51:56 UTC
You're just worried that a newbie who has been playing three months, learns faster than you did in three years and becomes a better player because the game is clearer than when you joined.

Again, you're just afraid of change :]
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#80 - 2012-01-26 13:54:02 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
I'thari wrote:
[quote=CCP Greyscale]Usability isn't for stupid people, it's for everyone. Again, we want to be reducing the effort players need to make to understand the information we're presenting, so that they have more time to think about the decisions they're making based on that information. Making good decisions should be hard. Reading the UI, or understanding what the hell a given module does, should be easy. There's no good excuse for a multiplayer game being obtuse.


"... multiplayer game being obtuse."

So i had to look up the meaning of "obtuse", as i'm not a native english speaker
and as i read what it means i thought ...

"but that's EXACTLY what you're doing!!"

obtuse ... abgestumpft, also translates to blunt.


Urk. That should read "abstruse". I always mix those up Oops